T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 6 S.C.R. 723 · Decided: 16-05-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 723 : 2024 INSC 426
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad 
v. 
Union of India & Ors.
IA No(S). 2930 of 2010, 3963 of 2017, 160714 of 2019, 77320 of 
2023 and 79064 of 2023 
In 
Writ Petition(Civil) No(S). 202 of 1995
16 May 2024
[B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Interlocutory applications preferred by the applicant being aggrieved 
by the inaction of the respondents in deciding the application filed by 
the applicant seeking permission to construct a health/eco-resort on 
the subject land being Plot Nos. 14/3 and 14/4, falling in Sheet 2 No. 
20, Civil Station, Pachmarhi, District Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh.
Headnotes
Environment – Wildlife Sanctuary – Forest Land – Permission 
to construct a health/eco-resort – Applicant had preferred an 
application to the Central Empowered Committee and sought 
permission to construct the health/eco-resort on plot nos. 
14/3 and 14/4 asserting that the said chunk of land was not a 
forest land – However, the prayer made by the applicant was 
not accepted whereupon, the applications under consideration 
came to be filed before the Supreme Court – It was contended 
by the State that the plots in question are subject matter of 
litigation in writ appeal pending before the High Court and 
applicant should wait the outcome of the aforesaid writ appeal:
Held: The issue raised by the State of Madhya Pradesh is with 
respect to the identification of the land owned by the applicant 
contending that the same forms a part of the Pachmarhi Wildlife 
Sanctuary – There have been various rounds of litigation and it is 
not in dispute that applicant herein was never impleaded in any of 
the proceedings before the Revenue Courts or the High Court – An 
order passed by the District Collector dated 09.08.2004, purportedly 
covers entire area of the Plot No. 14 and the transactions done 
in favour of and by one D, the sale deed executed in favour of 
724
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the applicant and the mutation made in its name had never been 
questioned in any Court of law – Neither the Revenue Department 
nor the State Government authorities took the trouble of impleading 
the applicant as party in any of the litigations – The title acquired 
by the applicant over the subject plots not having been challenged, 
attainted finality and thus the State cannot claim a right thereupon 
simply because at some point of time, the plots came to be recorded 
as Nazul lands in the revenue records – The categoric stand in 
the compliance affidavit filed by the State fortifies the claim of the 
applicant that these plots are falling under the urban area – In this 
background, the appellant is justified in claiming that its proprietary 
rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution cannot 
be infringed merely on account of the pending writ appeal before 
the High Court – Nonetheless, the applicant would satisfy the 
authorities that the plots in question are beyond the Eco-Sensitive 
Zone – Therefore, it is directed that the application filed by the 
applicant for raising construction on plot Nos. 14/3 and 14/4 shall 
be decided objectively by the CEC/Competent Authority of the 
local body keeping in view the location of the land with reference 
to the notified boundaries of the ESZ. [Paras 8, 19, 20, 21, 23]
List of Acts
Wild Life(Protection) Act, 1972; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Environment; Wildlife Sanctuary; Forest Land; Permission to 
construct a health/eco-resort; Eco-Sensitive Zone; Proprietary 
rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: IA Nos. 2930 of 2010, 3963 of 
2017, 160714 of 2019, 77320 of 2023 and 79064 of 2023
In
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
Appearances for Parties
K. Parameshwar, A.C., M.V. Mukunda, Ms. Kanti, Ms. Aarti Gupta, 
Chinmay Kalgaonkar, Ms. Musharraf Chawdhary, M/s. Lawyer S 
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
725
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
Knit & Co, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, M/s. PLR Chambers and Co., 
Syed Mehdi Imam, T. Harish Kumar, M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co., Advs. 
for the Petitioner.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., K.M. Natraj, A.S.G., Nalin Kohli, Sr. 
A.A.G, Saurabh Mishra, Shiv Mangal Sharma, Vaibhav Srivastava, 
A.A.Gs., D.S. Naidu, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Ms. Archana Pathak 
Dave, Siddharth Bhatnagar, Ravindra Kumar, Sr Advs., Gurmeet 
Singh Makker, Ms. Archana Path

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.